ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparison of ventilation with second-generation supraglottic airway devices in a prospective randomized cadaver study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Second-generation supraglottic airway devices (SADs) are widely used alternatives to endotracheal intubation in both anesthesia and emergency airway management. The newly developed LT®evo represents a redesigned version of the established Laryngeal Tube Suction Disposable (LTS-D). This study compared the ventilatory performance of the LT®evo with endotracheal intubation and three other second-generation SADs- LTS-D, Ambu® AuraGain™ and i-gel® Plus-using a controlled human cadaver model. In this prospective, randomized experiment, six thawed adult cadavers were sequentially ventilated via an endotracheal tube (ET) and four SADs under standardized mechanical ventilation (tidal volume 7 mL/kg, PEEP 5 cmH₂O, respiratory rate 10/min). Airway pressure and flow were continuously recorded (sampling rate 200 Hz) to determine inspiratory tidal volume, pressure, flow, and calculated resistance. Endotracheal intubation using fiberoptics was attempted via LT®evo , AuraGain™ and i-gel® Plus. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis tests with Holm-corrected post-hoc pairwise comparisons. From six human cadavers (60-85kg estimated body weight), 30 complete ventilation datasets were obtained. Initial fiberoptic control of SAD placement showed optimal positioning in 13 of 24 insertions. During ventilation cycles, inspiratory tidal volumes of the LT®evo (0.49 [0.46-0.52]) were similar to those of ET, AuraGain™ and LTS-D and superior to those of the i-gel® Plus (0.31 L [0.27-0.33], p < 0.001). Peak inspiratory pressure and inspiratory resistance were higher in ET when compared to LT®evo and all other SADs. Endotracheal intubation using fiberoptics was successful in all attempts via LT®evo , AuraGain™ and i-gel® Plus. In this controlled cadaver study, the newly designed LT®evo demonstrated ventilatory performance comparable to that of the LTS-D and the Ambu® AuraGain
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.